1. law, govt and politics
2. espionage and intelligence
3. surveillance

Access 5 Project Office
NASA
P.O. Box 273
Edwards, CA 93523 USA
661-276-2440
661-276-3880 FAX
www.access5.aero
COVER SHEET
Access 5 Project Deliverable
Deliverable Number: SE001
Title: HALE UAS Concept of Operations_v3
Filename:
SE001_HALE_UAS_Concept_of_Operations_v3_FINAL2.doc
Abstract:
This document is a system level Concept of Operations (CONOPS) from the perspective of
future High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) service
providers and National Airspace System (NAS) users. It describes current systems (existing
UAS), describes HALE UAS functions and operations to be performed (via sample missions),
and offers insight into the user’s environment (i.e., the UAS as a system of systems). It is
intended to be a source document for NAS UAS operational requirements, and provides a
construct for government agencies to use in guiding their regulatory decisions, architecture
requirements, and investment strategies.
Although it does not describe the technical
capabilities of a specific HALE UAS system (which do, and will vary widely), it is intended to aid
in requirements capture and to be used as input to the functional requirements and analysis
process. The document provides a basis for development of functional requirements and
operational guidelines to achieve unrestricted access into the NAS.
This document is an FY06 update to the FY05 Access 5 Project-approved Concept of
Operations document previously published in the Public Domain on the Access 5 open website.
This version is recommended to be approved for public release also. The updates are a
reorganization of materials from the previous version with the addition of an updated set of
operational requirements, inclusion of sample mission scenarios, and identification of roles and
responsibilities of interfaces within flight phases.
Status:
Access 5 – Recommended
for NASA Approval
Limitations on use:
The perspective of this CONOPS is written with respect to HALE UAS.
HALE UAS
Concept of Operations
Version 3.0
February 2006
Prepared by:
The Access 5 Project
Systems Engineering & Integration Team
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Approved by: ____________________________________
Jeffery E. Bauer, NASA Access 5 Project Manager
UAV National
Industry Team
____________________________________
David A. Buis, UNITE Industry Director
This document was prepared by a collaborative
team through the noted
ii
work package. This was a funded effort under the Access 5 Project.
This page intentionally left blank.
iii
Document Revision History
Version
Date
Version 1
September
2003
Version 2
April
2005
Version 3
February
2006
Changes
Internal Access 5 working document prepared for planning
teams and work package developments.
Released to FAA and RTCA, Internal restriction labels
removed. Project organizational chart updated.
General rewrite and reorganization of document to reflect
overall project findings to date. Adopted use of Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS) in place of Remotely operated
Aircraft (ROA).
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
v
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ix
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS VERSUS OPERATIONAL CONCEPT
CONOPS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
CONOPS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
1
1
1
3
4
2.
2.1
HALE UAS DESCRIPTION
HALE UAS ELEMENTS
2.1.1 Unmanned Aircraft
2.1.2 Control Station & Ground Support
2.1.3 Data & Voice Communication Links
EXISTING HALE UAS
7
7
8
8
8
9
2.2
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
OPERATIONAL & REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTS
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT – MANNED & UNMANNED
3.1.1 Aircraft Registration
3.1.2 Aircraft Certification
3.1.3 Pilot Qualifications
3.1.4 Requirements for Equivalent Level of Safety
CURRENT OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT – WAIVERS & AUTHORIZATIONS
CHALLENGE AREAS
3.3.1 Appropriate Level of Safety
3.3.2 Minimum Airworthiness and Operating Standards
3.3.3 Sense and Avoid
3.3.4 Frequency Spectrum
3.3.5 Pilot Qualifications
3.3.6 Separation Issues
3.3.7 System Safety Analyses
FAA CONSIDERS UAS AS AIRCRAFT
FUTURE NAS DEVELOPMENTS
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
CONOPS FOR HALE UAS IN THE NAS
“FILE AND FLY” CAPABILITY
HALE UAS OPERATING CONCEPT
HALE UAS EXTERNAL INTERFACES
4.3.1 External Interfaces Used During Pre & Post-Flight Phases
4.3.2 External Interfaces Used During The Flight Operations Phase
EXAMPLE UAS MISSION SCENARIOS
4.4.1 Loiter Mission
4.4.2 Point-to-Point Mission
HALE UAS OPERATIONS WITH IN THE NAS
4.5.1 Mission Planning Operations
4.5.2 Airport Operations
4.5.3 Departure & Arrival Operations
17
17
17
18
18
19
21
22
22
23
23
23
24
vi
4.6
4.5.4 En-Route/Cruise Operations
4.5.5 Contingency Operations
OVERALL NAS INTEGRATION
24
24
24
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
IMPLEMENTATION
POLICIES / RULES / REGULATIONS
ENABLING CAPABILITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES
UAS CAPABLE AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
OPERATIONS WITHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE
27
27
27
28
28
6.
REFERENCE MATERIAL
29
APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS
31
APPENDIX B – DEFINITIONS
33
APPENDIX C – ACCESS 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
C.1 ACCESS 5 VISION AND MISSION
C.2 ACCESS 5 PROJECT SCOPE
C.3 ACCESS 5 PROJECT STRUCTURE
C.4 ACCESS 5 PROJECT PLAN AND PHASES
C.4.1 Step 1: Routine Operations above FL430 through Pre-coordinated Airspace
C.4.1 Step 2: Routine Operations above FL180 through Pre-coordinated
Airspace with Emergency Landings at Pre-coordinated Airports
C.4.3 Step 3: Routine Operations above FL180 through C, D, E Airspace
with Emergency Landings at Pre-coordinated Airports
C.4.4 Step 4: Routine Operations above FL180 through C, D, E Airspace
with Emergency Landings at any UAS Designated Airports
37
37
37
38
40
41
vii
42
43
44
List of Tables
Table 1. HALE UAS CONOPS Development Assumptions
Table 2: HALE UAS Regulatory and Operational Requirements
Table 3. Notional Organizational Roles and Responsibilities during a
HALE UAS Missions
Table 4. Concept of Operations References
3
13
20
29
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Operational Concept & Concept of Operation
Figure 2. HALE UAS Elements
Figure 3. Examples of HALE UAS Manufactured in the United States
Figure 4. HALE UAS Operational Concept
Figure 5. HALE UAS System External Interfaces
Figure 6. Example HALE UAS Mission Scenarios
Figure 7. Loiter Mission Timeline
Figure 8. Point-to-Point Mission Timeline
Figure C1. Access 5 Project Organization Structure
Figure C2. Step 1 Capabilities
Figure C3. Step 2 Capabilities
Figure C4. Step 3 Capabilities
Figure C5. Step 4 Capabilities
viii
2
7
9
17
19
21
22
23
39
41
42
43
44
This page intentionally left blank.
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The demand to operate High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) within the National Airspace System (NAS) is expected to increase significantly in the
first decade of the 21st Century. This demand is being fueled by federal non-DoD needs (e.g.,
Homeland Security) and an emerging civil market driven by the need for remote sensing (e.g.,
weather forecasting, earth science) and advancements in telecommunications. This growth of the
HALE UAS industry necessitates that the FAA establish regulatory criteria (certification of
aircraft and the individuals who fly them) and operating standards (flight rules) that provide for
the safe integration of HALE UAS into the mainstream of airspace users via routine access to the
NAS comparable to that of manned aircraft.
This Concept of Operations (CONOPS) document provides a basis for technological, procedural
and architectural investments that will lead to initial operational capabilities enabling HALE
UAS to “file and fly” within the NAS. The CONOPS is not intended, nor does it attempt, to
describe an end-state system. The concepts presented are the first steps in the evolution toward
achieving full HALE UAS integration into the NAS.
HALE UAS systems will need to be designed, manufactured, certificated and operated under the
same regulations as manned aircraft. HALE UAS flight operations will need to demonstrate that
they can achieve an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) comparable with manned aircraft, so they
do not pose a hazard to persons and property both in the air and on the ground. Onboard
automated systems will be needed to enable the HALE UAS to achieve an ELOS in the event of
any in-flight anomaly or loss of command, control or communication links. HALE UAS will
operate in the same airspace as manned aircraft and not be dependent on segregation to maintain
requisite levels of safety. Ensuring that HALE UAS achieve an ELOS is accomplished through
processes similar to those used to demonstrate manned aircraft are safe. These procedures
include: aircraft airworthiness certification, pilot certification, and compliance with the general
operating and flight rules, the three aviation regulatory components comprising “aviation safety”.
This document is intended to be a system level CONOPS. It provides a concept of operations
from the perspective of future HALE UAS service providers and NAS users. It describes current
systems (existing UAS), describes HALE UAS functions and operations to be performed (via
sample missions), and offers insight into the user’s environment (i.e., the UAS as a system of
systems). It is intended to be a source document for NAS UAS operational requirements, and
provides a construct for government agencies to use in guiding their regulatory decisions,
architecture requirements, and investment strategies. Although it does not describe the technical
capabilities of a specific HALE UAS system (which do, and will vary widely), it is intended to
aid in requirements capture and to be used as input to the functional requirements and analysis
process. The document provides a basis for development of functional requirements and
operational guidelines to achieve unrestricted access into the NAS.
This HALE UAS CONOPS represents a user’s view of how HALE UAS will be operated in the
future and offers a vision for integrating HALE UAS into the NAS. It provides details as to how
HALE UAS would be integrated into the NAS, what infrastructure they will utilize, and
identifies potential technologies that will be needed to allow HALE UAS to routinely operate
within civil airspace in a manner similar to manned aircraft.
The CONOPS identifies future challenge areas that must be addressed prior fully integrating
UAS into civil airspace. The achievement of routine fly and fly access to the NAS will require
x
the relevant interpretation of existing policies and standards, the development of new procedures
and technologies, along with sufficient data to verify and validate that they are appropriate and
adequate for safe flight in the NAS. Offered only as a vision, it is recognized that the
achievement of this capability will depend on the establishment of standards from the
appropriate standards organization.
The timeframe for this transition (evolution) is consistent with expected technological
improvements and strategic goals contained within the Federal Aviation Administration’s NAS
development documents. Specifically, approved UAS systems will ensure that safety and
security of the NAS is maintained, while efficiency gains are complemented. It is also expected
that technological and procedural advances achieved with HALE UAS systems will have a
direct, positive effect on UAS systems operating at lower altitudes within the NAS, including
airport surface operations.
xi
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The demand to operate High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) within the National Airspace System (NAS) is expected to increase significantly in the
near future. This demand is being fueled by emerging civil markets (federal non-DOD and
commercial), both domestic and international. The growth of the HALE UAS industry requires
technology standards and regulatory criteria (certification of aircraft and the individuals who fly
them) and operating standards (flight rules) that provide for the safe integration of this new
aviation technology into the mainstream of airspace users.
This Concept of Operations (CONOPS) document has been prepared by the Access 5 Project
(see Appendix C for the history and background on the Access 5 Project) to provide insight into
how HALE UAS will integrate into the NAS, what infrastructure they will utilize, and what
technology will be required to make these advances possible. It is expected that this CONOPS
will form the basis for technological, procedural and architectural investments that will produce
initial HALE UAS system operational requirements to operate routinely within the NAS. The
operational concepts identified with this process are the first steps to implementing far reaching
concepts for achieving full HALE UAS integration into the NAS. These concepts will be used
as a baseline to define overall UAS system planning for access into the NAS.
1.2 CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS VERSUS OPERATIONAL CONCEPT
The terms Concepts of Operation (CONOPS) and Operational Concepts (OPSCON) are
sometimes confused and erroneously used interchangeably. An OPSCON provides a vision of
future operational capabilities and articulates them in a high-level description of the processes
and services needed to achieve that vision. What it is that one is striving to achieve. It also
provides an estimate of the level of performance required from the components of the system. A
CONOPS on the other hand describes a system’s functional characteristics from a user’s
perspective and provides a detailed description of how a system would be used.
An OPSCON is typically written at a higher level that a CONOPS. Figure 1 depicts the
hierarchy of OPSCON and CONOPS documents using Air Traffic Management (ATM) as an
example. The ICAO ATM Operational Concept describes an internationally recognized future
gate-to-gate ATM operational concept. European Nations have created the EuroControl
Operational Concept. Each identifies key changes that will need to be made and provides a
general picture of the future performance of the ATM system – the organization, airport and
airspace operations, demand, capacity, traffic synchronization, conflict management, and other
services). An OPSCON provides a foundational basis for developing the requisite components
of the future system. It is visionary in scope, is not limited by state-of-the-art (SOA)
technologies, realizes benefits of current technology investments, and offers a basis for cost
benefit for future technologies and innovations. In the U.S., the guiding document is the FAA
(RTCA) NAS Concept of Operations.
1
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Operational Concept (OPSCON)
and Concept of Operation (CONOPS)
The FAA NAS Systems Engineering Manual (Ref: NAS Systems Engineering Manual, Ver. 3,
Sept 30, 2004) describes two levels of CONOPS:
NAS Level CONOPS – “… a high-level document that indicates, from the user’s perspective,
the desired end state for the respective system in the NAS.”
System Level CONOPS – “ … an extension of a NAS Level CONOPS with an emphasis on a
particular system. … more detailed and substantial, … it is an expression of the user’s needs
with respect to a specific system with in the NAS.”
This HALE UAS CONOPS is intended to be a system level CONOPS. It provides a concept of
operations from the perspective of future HALE UAS service providers and NAS users. It
describes current systems (existing UAS), describes HALE UAS functions and operations to be
performed (via sample missions), and offers insight into the user’s environment (i.e., the UAS as
a system of systems). It is intended to be a source document for NAS UAS operational
requirements, and provides a construct for government agencies to use in guiding their regulatory
decisions, architecture requirements, and investment strategies. Although it does not describe
the technical capabilities of a specific HALE UAS system (which do and will vary widely), it is
intended to aid in requirements capture and to be used as input to the functional requirements and
analysis process. It provides a basis for functional requirements development. This HALE UAS
CONOPS represents a user’s view of how HALE UAS will be operated in the future and
identifies future challenges associated with developing the requirements for the future NAS.
2
1.3 CONOPS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
In order to develop a CONOPS that would be feasible within a reasonable timeframe, some
assumptions had to be made. These assumptions are summarized in Table 1. In short, the
assumptions suggest that a HALE UAS system will need to be designed, manufactured,
certificated and operated under similar regulations as manned aircraft. Onboard automated
systems will be available to enable the HALE UAS to achieve an equivalent level of safety as a
manned system in the event of any in-flight anomaly or loss of command, control or
communication links. The HALE UAS will operate in the same airspace as manned aircraft and
will not depend on segregation to maintain requisite levels of safety.
Table 1. HALE UAS CONOPS Development Assumptions
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Assumptions
Civil HALE UAS – UAS certified for civil use requires a broader level of involvement with the FAA,
and is more appropriate for commercial application of UAS versus public-operated (military, federal, or
state operations) UAS.
UAS are regulated aircraft – UAS are considered aircraft subject to FAA regulation for airworthiness
and operations.
HALE civil/commercial UAS require type certification – Same as a manned aircraft.
Commercial UAS require appropriate operating certificates (includes maintenance, training, etc.) –
Same as a manned aircraft. The specific crew rating requirements will be proposed as part of the Project.
Civil/commercial UAS require approved production process – Will be same as a manned aircraft for
Type Certifications.
Civil UAS require an Airworthiness Certificate – Same as a manned aircraft.
Small aircraft (Part 23) is starting point for level of safety/performance requirements – Part 23
provides a starting basis for program planning. Actual UAS safety/performance requirements will be
proposed as part of the Project.
Control Station part of UAS System will require Certification – The Control Station is considered
part of the UAS system and therefore will need to be type certified.
UAS operations in the NAS will be under IFR only – All UAS flight will be conducted on an IFR
flight plan. This is consistent with HALE UAS operations in Class A airspace.
IFR equipment requirements may change for UAS (functional equivalence is the requirement) –
Since the UAS control station is separate from the aircraft, the minimum equipment requirements for
flight under IFR may not be the same as for manned aircraft. The requirement is assumed to be providing
equipment that delivers the same functionality as required for manned aircraft.
General Operating and Flight Rules (Part 91) is starting point for UAS flight operations – Part 91
provides the starting basis for program planning. Exceptions to Part 91 for UAS will be
identified/proposed as part of the Project.
No new Special Airspace exclusive to UAS – No airspace will be designated or set aside for commercial
UAS operations.
UAS will comply with existing Separation Standards (per FAA 71110.65) – The UAS will be treated
like a manned aircraft with respect to air traffic controller requirements for aircraft separation. Unless it
is determined that safety issues arise when UAS operate under existing separation standards (i.e., called
out in FAA 7110.65) they will adhere to those separation standards. If safety concerns are identified,
then new UAS-unique separation standards may need to be developed. ELOS comparable to manned
systems will be maintained.
The UAS must be able to comply with all ATC instructions – Same as a manned aircraft under ATC
control.
Pilot (operator) will be certificated under Part 61 – All UAS flight crew will be certified using 14
CFR Part 61, the same as manned aircraft. Recommendations for certification standards for UAS flight
crew will be defined during the Project.
3
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Maintenance requirements will be similar to General Aviation (14 CFR Part 43) – An annual
inspection will be required for the UAS. All maintenance will need to be recorded in UAS logbooks and
the UAS returned to service (declared airworthy) by appropriately certified personnel. The Control
Station is part of the airworthy UAS system, so it will also need to be configuration controlled, too.
Basis for UAS system certification will be under Part 21.17 – The basis for UAS type certification will
be tailored from existing certification rules and potentially new rules proposed.
The FAA will require UAS to achieve an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) – The FAA will require
safety analysis (type TBD), NAS simulation and/or flight demonstrated capability to operate safely in the
NAS. The level of safety demonstrated will be commensurate with the type of operations to be
conducted.
ELOS requirements shall be specified in functional terms – The equivalent level of safety
requirements will be stated as functional requirements, and not specific design requirements.
Access 5 Project will NOT certify an aircraft or subsystems – The actual certification of an UAS, or
UAS subsystem will be the responsibility of an UAS or subsystem manufacturer.
An operator will be in/on the loop during normal UAS operations – A human will always have
control or override authority during normal UAS flight operations. Even when the UAS is operating
autonomously, a human will have the ability to take control of the UAS.
Landing aids will transition to augmented navigation systems – By the end of the Project, the primary
method of landing will be some augmented form of GPS (WAAS, LAAS, etc.) onboard the UAS.
UAS will operate in all classes of airspace – UAS equipment and operating procedures must provide the
capability to operate in any class of airspace usable under IFR.
The airspace used by UAS will contain both cooperating and non-cooperating aircraft – By the end
of the project, UAS policies, procedures, and technologies must be in place to allow operations in
environments with all normal NAS traffic, and maintain an equivalent level of safety as a manned
aircraft.
Autonomy is a system implementation preference – Whether a function is performed manually or
automatically (autonomously), it will still need to meet minimum operational and performance
requirements while achieving an equivalent level of safety as a manned system.
1.4 CONOPS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document conveys the Access 5 Project’s Concept of Operations for HALE UAS in the
future NAS. It contains six sections and three appendices with following contents:
Section 1 provides a context for the HALE UAS Concept of Operations document, summarizes
the assumptions used in development of the document.
Section 2 provides an introduction to the HALE UAS system with a description of its three
operational elements and a brief overview of existing HALE UAS systems.
Section 3 describes the challenges facing HALE UAS operation within the NAS, and the current
FAA regulatory environment within which HALE UAS will need to fit. Also presented is a
perspective on what the requirement for an equivalent level of safety means for HALE UAS and
what the future NAS holds of HALE UAS.
Section 4 contains the Concept of Operations for how HALE UAS will operate within the NAS
with a “file and fly” capability. The section identifies critical HALE UAS external interfaces
with the NAS and provides examples of HALE UAS mission scenarios. Activities related to
mission planning, airport operations, departure/arrival procedures, en-route/cruise operations,
contingency operations, and over all NAS integration issues are addressed.
Section 5 discusses issues pertinent to the implementation of a HALE UAS System and related
integration activities.
4
Section 6 contains a list of reference material used in developing this CONOPS document.
Appendix A is a list of the acronyms used within this document.
Appendix B presents definitions of terms used within this document.
Appendix C provides an overview of the Access 5 Project, including the project vision and
mission statements, project scope, the project organizational structure and a summary of the
project plan highlighting the four originally planned steps (project phases) leading to routine
access of the NAS for HALE UAS.
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
2.
HALE UAS DESCRIPTION
2.1 HALE UAS Elements
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) come in varying sizes; from the micro-size aircraft to those
with wingspans greater than today’s largest commercial aircraft. UAS also have a wide
spectrum of operational characteristics and are capable of operating at all altitudes. For purposes
of this document, HALE UAS are defined as being capable of performing mission objectives at
altitudes above 40,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) for durations of at least 24 continuous hours,
and operating “over the horizon” far from its control station using satellite, airborne or ground
relayed communication links.
A HALE UAS certified to fly within controlled airspace would be comprised of three key
elements depicted in figure 2:
1) Unmanned Aircraft,
2) Control Station & Ground Support, and
3) Data & Voice Communication Links
Each of these elements are described below.
Figure 2. HALE UAS Elements
7
2.1.1 Unmanned Aircraft
The HALE UAS does not carry a human pilot and is operated through electronic input controlled
by an UAS pilot/operator. The unmanned aircraft element includes the aircraft and onboard
avionics hardware and software necessary to ensure safe and reliable operation within the NAS,
and mission specific equipment. Components in the aircraft include, but are not limited to:
> Airframe and Structures
> Propulsion
> Flight Controls
> Data Communications
> Collision Avoidance
> Navigation
> Electrical
> Flight Recovery System
> Weather Detection & Avoidance
2.1.2 Control Station & Ground Support
The Control Station (CS) & Ground Support element includes the necessary resources to perform
the following functions:
> Mission Planning
> Launch and Recovery
> Aircraft Control and Operations
> Support and Training
> Maintenance and Logistics
The necessary resources used within the control station may include hardware, software, and
human personnel skilled in performing the above functions. The human interface at the control
station may or may-not be co-located with the launch/recovery, maintenance, training and
logistics elements.
Note that this CONOPS does not presume that the UAS has any specific Level of Autonomy
(LOA, defined in Appendix B). Although all UAS will have some level of automated
operations, the requirements for ELOS are paramount and will establish the operational
requirements based on the level of automation incorporated into the design of the UAS system.
2.1.3 Data & Voice Communication Links
The Data and Voice Communication Links element provides the means for command and
control data uplink and downlink capability when the UAS is either within line-of-sight (LOS) or
over-the-horizon (OTH) from the CS, and voice communications between the UAS pilot and Air
Traffic Control (ATC). This element should be highly available and reliable to ensure safe,
secure, and efficient UAS operations within the NAS. Components of the Data & Voice
Communications element may include:
> LOS & OTH Communications
> Satellite Communication services
> Airborne Relay Communication services
> Landline Communication services
8
2.2 EXISTING HALE UAS
HALE UAS currently operating within the United States includes the AeroVironment Pathfinder
Plus and Helios1, the General Atomics Predator B and Altair, Northrop Grumman’s Global
Hawk, and the Aurora Flight Sciences Perseus B (see figure 3). Each of these aircraft has
operational characteristics that are significantly different from each other. For example,
Pathfinder Plus and Helios are solar powered HALE UAS with very limited maneuvering
capability. Both climb and turn slowly and their cruise speed generally does not exceed 50 miles
per hour. The Perseus B cruises at 65 knots up to an altitude of 60,000 feet. The Predator B and
Altair maneuvering capabilities are similar to a manned aircraft, yet their climb speed and cruise
speed (200 knot range) are still considerably slower than aircraft that operate at their cruise
altitude. The Global Hawk climb and cruise speeds are similar to those of commercial transport
aircraft that operate in the same airspace. The Pathfinder and Helios solar powered HALE UAS
do not taxi and must be towed onto the active runway, whereas, Predator B, Perseus B, and
Global Hawk are each able to taxi to the active runway.
Figure 3. Examples of HALE UAS Manufactured in the United States
Currently, HALE UAS are primarily used by the DoD organizations for military reconnaissance
applications, using various systems for remote sensing, such as electro-optic (EO), infrared (IR),
or synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors. Several other government agencies, such as NASA,
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of
Energy (DoE), have demonstrated the usefulness of these aircraft for scientific research and data
collection. Some of these applications include agriculture monitoring, researching weather
phenomenology, wildfire monitoring and management, and global disaster monitoring.
1
The Helios aircraft was lost in an in-flight mishap in 2004.
9
This page intentionally left blank.
10
3.
REGULATORY & OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
3.1 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT – MANNED & UNMANNED
Aviation safety within the United States, and throughout the world, is achieved through
regulatory processes that address the aircraft, the pilot, and operational flight rules. The FAA
has the responsibility for maintaining safety in the NAS. The FAA issues a series of FAR under
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to define the applicable aircraft certification
standards, pilot requirements, and general operating and flight rules.
One of the objectives of this CONOPS is to establish a basis for the regulatory criteria that will
define the requirements HALE UAS operators will need to meet to be able to conduct
unrestricted (file and fly) flight operations in every category of airspace. It is envisioned that
HALE UAS will operate within the same regulatory system as manned aircraft.
3.1.1 Aircraft Registration
The first aspect of the regulatory requirement for aircraft, both civil and public, is that of aircraft
registration. Aircraft registration is important because it uniquely identifies each aircraft. The
aircraft identification is also important to the flight plan process to uniquely identify each aircraft
and its capabilities. (See FAA Form 8050-1, Aircraft Registration Application.)
3.1.2 Aircraft Certification
Following aircraft registration, aircraft type and airworthiness certification is achieved. The type
and airworthiness certification criteria and methods establish a minimum set of design and
performance requirements for safe flight for that category and class of aircraft. All civil aircraft
must obtain an FAA Certificate of Airworthiness prior to flight within the NAS. Each aircraft
must also be operated and maintained in compliance with the airworthiness certificate. When a
new aircraft type (design) is approved, the model identification is also recorded, and all future
aircraft of that type are given the same model identification. The operational characteristics of
each aircraft model are included in the FAA’s aircraft performance data records. ATC uses these
data to assist in controlling aircraft in the NAS. (See FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S.
Airworthiness Certificate).
3.1.3 Pilot Qualifications
In the future regulatory environment it is expected that HALE UAS pilots will need to meet very
similar qualifications as pilots of manned aircraft. The standards for manned aircraft have been
established by aircraft type, class, and category associated with the classification of airspace in
which flight operations are performed. Because some portion of each HALE UAS flight will be
performed in Class A airspace, which requires the flight to operate under Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR), it is appropriate for HALE UAS pilots to possess a current pilot certificate and instrument
rating or the equivalent. These qualifications should also be satisfactory for the operation of
HALE UAS in any category of airspace.
3.1.4 Requirements for Equivalent Level of Safety
HALE UAS flight operations will need to demonstrate that they can achieve an equivalent level
of safety (ELOS) comparable with manned aircraft, and as such, do not pose a hazard to persons
and property both in the air and on the ground. Ensuring that HALE UAS achieve an ELOS
11
would be accomplished through processes similar to those used to make certain that manned
aircraft are safe - aircraft airworthiness certification, pilot certification, and compliance with the
general operating and flight rules. These three aviation regulatory elements taken together
comprise “aviation safety”. If any single element is unsafe, the entire system is unsafe.
The easiest method of demonstrating safety is to meet the existing rules and regulations for
manned aircraft (14 CFR 21.21, paragraph (b)2). If existing airworthiness standards cannot be
met, then the shortcoming (deficiency) must be “…compensated for by factors that provide an
equivalent level of safety.” The process for demonstrating that a deficiency still meets the
equivalent level of safety requirement is identified in Paragraph (g.) of FAA Order 8110.4B 3.
This order identifies the FAA aircraft certification office (ACO) as responsible for the “…
equivalent level of safety finding” when literal compliance with a certification regulation cannot
be met, and compensating factors can be shown to provide the requisite equivalent level of
safety. The evaluation is often subjective, and looks at the system and/or operation to determine
the risk to other users of the NAS and people/property on the ground.
Table 2 summarizes the regulatory and operational requirements that will be needed by a HALE
UAS to enable it to operate routinely and safely in the NAS. These include requirements that
identify where the system will be used, how the system will accomplish its mission objectives,
and what environment the system will be expected to operate within.
2
14CFR 21.21; Paragraph (b.) Issue of type certificate: normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport
category aircraft; manned free balloons; special classes of aircraft; aircraft engines; propeller.
An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport
category, or for a manned free balloon, special class of aircraft, or an aircraft engine or propeller, if:
(a) The product qualifies under Sec. 21.27; or
(b) The applicant submits the type design, test reports, and computations necessary to show that the product to be
certificated meets the applicable airworthiness, aircraft noise, fuel venting, and exhaust emission requirements
of the Federal Aviation Regulations and any special conditions prescribed by the Administrator, and the
Administrator finds-(1) Upon examination of the type design, and after completing all tests and inspections, that the type design
and the product meet the applicable noise, fuel venting, and emissions requirements of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, and further finds that they meet the applicable airworthiness requirements of the Federal
Aviation Regulations or that any airworthiness provisions not complied with are compensated for by
factors that provide an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) For an aircraft, that no feature or characteristic makes it unsafe for the category in which certification is
requested.
3
FAA Order 8110.4B; Paragraph (g.) Equivalent Level of Safety Finding
(1) Equivalent level of safety findings are made when literal compliance with a certification regulation cannot be
shown and compensating factors exist which can be shown to provide an equivalent level of safety (reference §
21.21(b)(1) and Order 8100.5, paragraph 408.)
(2) The applicant submits to the ACO the proposed equivalent level of safety. The ACO then submits to the
Directorate the proposed equivalent level of safety with recommendations. The Directorate accountable
makes all equivalent level of safety findings.
(3) In documenting an equivalent level of safety:
(a) List the applicable regulation;
(b) Describe the features of the design that require the equivalent level of safety findings;
(c) Describe any design changes, limitations, or equipment imposed to make the equivalency; and
(d) Provide an explanation of how the actions taken provide an equivalent level of safety to that intended by
the regulation.
(4) All equivalent level of safety findings must be listed on the TCDS or on the STC.
12
Table 2: HALE UAS Regulatory and Operational Requirements
No.
Regulatory and Operational Requirement
Overall Requirement: UAS shall operate safely and routinely in the NAS.
1
UAS shall be airworthy.
1.1
The UAS shall be registered with the FAA.
1.2
The UAS shall obtain and maintain an airworthiness certificate.
The UAS shall meet an equivalent level of safety to that of a manned general aviation
aircraft.
1.3
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
UAS shall be operated safely in the NAS.
UAS operations shall comply with all applicable requirements in 14 CFR Part 91 –
General Operating and Flight Rules.
The UAS shall obtain and maintain the necessary operating certificates for 14 CFR Part
91 commercial operations (maintenance, training, etc.).
UAS flight operations shall be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
The UAS shall operate under the same separation standards required for manned aircraft
per FAA 7110.65.
An authorized and qualified human shall be responsible for the safe flight of each UAS.
The UAS shall operate in a predictable manner similar to that of manned aircraft in the
event of an emergency or other contingency situation.
The UAS shall utilize authorized frequency spectrum for command, control,
communications and payloads.
3.2 CURRENT OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT – WAIVERS AND AUTHORIZATIONS
Regardless of their mission or role, UAS are currently restricted as to HOW, WHEN, and
WHERE they can operate within the NAS. Since there are few regulatory or procedural
guidelines in existence for unmanned aircraft, UAS operations within civil airspace are currently
treated as exceptions, one time events, and authorization to fly is granted on a per mission basis
under an FAA-issued Certificate of Authorization (COA) (FAA Form 7711-1), in accordance
with procedures contained in FAA Order 7610.4K, Special Military Operations. This FAA order
is a joint agreement between the FAA and the DoD that delineates responsibilities and
procedures that apply to a variety of special military operations. Currently, the FAA utilizes the
COA as the means of authorizing all UAS operations in the NAS, outside restricted and warning
areas.
The Air Traffic Divisions (ATD) in the various FAA regional offices are responsible for granting
or denying a HALE UAS operator’s request to conduct HALE UAS flight operations in the
NAS, except that the FAA Flight Standards (FS) organization will make the determination for
those FAR sections assigned to them for consideration. Applications for COAs that require both
ATD and FS technical consideration are handled jointly. The FS organization, as designated by
the FAA Administrator, is responsible for providing advice with respect to the qualifications of
civil pilots, airworthiness of civil aircraft, and safety of persons and property on the ground.
13
The granting of a Certificate of Authorization (COA) by the FAA constitutes relief from the
specific regulations stated, to the degree and for the period of time specified in the certificate, but
does not waive any state laws or local ordinances. Should the proposed operations conflict with
any state or local ordinances, or require permission from local authorities or property owners, it
is the applicant’s responsibility to resolve the matter.
Even with a valid COA UAS are unable to routinely operate as a manned aircraft and are subject
to numerous restrictions prohibiting them from performing simple activities such as: operating
above populated areas of the country, taking off or landing outside special use airspace (SUA),
and flying in airspace containing manned aircraft. Under the COA process, UAS are allowed to
operate within the NAS, but only through means of segregation.
3.3 CHALLENGE AREAS
There are a number of challenges associated with integrating UAS into civil airspace. Close
coordination with the FAA has identified seven major challenge areas that must be addressed
prior to UAS having the ability to file and fly within the NAS. These challenges must be
addressed to enable safe, routine operations of UAS in the NAS. All are necessary, and each is
of equal importance. Although an interim work-around may be utilized in certain challenge
areas to enable limited operations, full and routine access to the NAS will require policies,
procedures, and technologies to be identified or developed, along with sufficient data to
substantiate that they are both appropriate and adequate for safe flight in the NAS. These seven
challenges are briefly discussed below.
3.3.1 Appropriate Level of Safety
As discussed in section 3.1.4, one of the key challenges that must be addressed is the definition
of an appropriate level of safety for a UAS. The minimum level of safety will drive the level of
airworthiness standards for the design and certification that the public demands for civil aircraft
in the NAS. There are currently different minimum levels of safety that are acceptable,
depending upon the classification and use of manned aircraft. The resolution of this challenge
will require a proposal with adequate rationale for an appropriate UAS level of safety – a level of
safety equivalent to comparable manned systems.
3.3.2 Minimum Airworthiness & Operating Standards
The minimum airworthiness and operational standards challenge is associated with the lack of
identified or developed standards for type/airworthiness certification and operation of UAS.
Appropriate and adequate standards have not yet been identified, or in some cases do not exist.
For example, cockpit design standards may not be appropriate or adequate for a UAS control
station that is physically separate from the unmanned aircraft. In such situations, new standards
will need to be developed with substantiation that they are both appropriate and adequate.
3.3.3 Sense and Avoid
The sense and avoid challenge refers to the UAS capability to comply with existing “see and
avoid” requirements for all aircraft in the NAS. This challenge involves both the definition of
standards and the development of technology solutions to meet those standards. A key element
of this challenge is to obtain agreement on an appropriate and adequate definition/description of
the UAS “sense and avoid” requirement. The definition/description needs to be broad enough to
14
allow for varied solutions to the problem, and specific enough to actually ensure the safe
operation of UAS in the NAS and on airport surfaces. Establishing sense and avoid functional
and performance requirements must be a key focus of the organizations trying to address this
challenge.
3.3.4 Frequency Spectrum
The frequency spectrum challenge addresses the need for allocated and approved frequency
spectrum for UAS command/control use. To date, no frequencies in the electromagnetic
spectrum have been allocated or approved for UAS command/control use. Current UAS, use
military spectrum, or commercial voice/data services for both command/control and data
transmission. UAS command/control involves flight-safety critical links and therefore needs to
be in a portion of the frequency spectrum that is appropriate and adequate for command/control
use, as well as allocated as a primary use by the FCC/ITU. Resolution of this challenge will
require national attention and international action to obtain the use of appropriate frequency
bands.
3.3.5 Pilot Qualifications
The pilot qualifications challenge involves the identification of appropriate minimum criteria for
UAS pilots and/or other required crewmembers. Pilot certification based on appropriate
standards is required to promote safe operations in the NAS. Resolution of this challenge will
require definition of a minimum level of pilot certification/rating for the pilot-in-command of a
UAS, and the definition of appropriate medical qualifications. In addition, training, currency,
and testing standards will also need to be developed to correspond to the UAS pilot
certificate/rating.
3.3.6 Separation Issues
The separation issues challenge deals with what the appropriate aircraft separation standards
should be for UAS systems. Since most unmanned aircraft have very different structural and
performance characteristics than their manned counterparts, they may require unique separation
standards. For example, HALE UAS tend to have long, very flexible wings that may have
susceptibility to turbulence generated by other aircraft. What the appropriate spacing of these
vehicles is for take-off and landing operations around other aircraft and safe passing distances at
altitudes need to be investigated to determine whether or not existing manned aircraft standards
and procedures are appropriate.
3.3.7 System Safety Analyses
The system safety analyses challenge refers to the need for various safety studies to be conducted
to assist in the identification and understanding of potential hazards/risks associated with UAS
certification and operation in the NAS. Since the UAS is a system of systems, safety analysis
should be performed on the individual elements as well as the overall system. Whatever safety
plan gets implemented, it should be compatible with the system safety management plan used by
the FAA.
15
3.4 FAA CONSIDERS UAS AS AIRCRAFT
The FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) applicable to aircraft, pilots, and general
operating and flight rules do not specifically use the terms remotely operated aircraft (ROA),
remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), unmanned air vehicle (UAV) or unmanned aircraft system
(UAS); or any similar aviation term for that matter. However, in FAR Part 1 Definitions and
Abbreviations, the statement that an “aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used
for flight in the air,” clearly places UAS in the aircraft category, just as airplanes, balloons,
gliders, rotorcraft and rockets are given specific definitions in FAR Part 1.
Further evidence that the FAA considers UAS to be aircraft is seen by their recent decision to
grant several UAS with tail numbers and issuance of an Experimental Airworthiness
Certifications (EAC). To date, three UAS have been granted tail numbers: the General Atomics
Altair, the Bell Helicopter/Textron Eagle Eye, and the Boeing Scan Eagle. Two of these three
aircraft have been granted EACs by the FAA: Altair in August 2005 and Eagle Eye in December
2005. Although the EACs limit both of these aircraft in how, when, and where they can operate,
the fact that the FAA issued airworthiness certificates is substantiating proof that UAS are in fact
aircraft.
3.5 FUTURE NAS DEVELOPMENTS
Since the NAS is expected to evolve towards a time-based system (e.g., 4D flight) the HALE
UAS will be expected to respond to time-based advisories in a manner similar to manned
aircraft. Currently, it is through heading, speed, and altitude advisories. In the near future
aircraft with 4D guidance may be given a preference. Policy, procedures, and technology
developments must consider the projected future state of the NAS as they are planned and
executed.
16
4.
CONOPS FOR HALE UAS IN THE NAS
4.1 “FILE AND FLY” CAPABILITY
The term “File and Fly” defines the ability of HALE UAS operators to file an IFR flight plan and
operate in all class of airspace, consistent with the regulatory criteria and operational
requirements for manned aircraft. It assumes the UAS has compatible performance capabilities
with manned aircraft operating at the same altitude(s). The flights require no pre-coordination
with ATC. As with manned aircraft, any UAS flights requiring special ATC handling in order to
achieve mission objectives are not “file and fly’ and would need to be pre-coordinated with
ATC.
4.2 HALE UAS OPERATING CONCEPT
The envisioned operating concept includes the ability to perform safe, secure, and efficient
operations within the NAS, with “unrestricted” flight for HALE UAS operating above 18,000
feet (FL180). A depiction of this concept is presented in figure 4.
Figure 4. HALE UAS Operational Concept
In a nominal mission, the HALE UAS will takeoff from an UAS designated airport (see Section
7.3) on an IFR flight clearance, and climb to its cruising or mission altitude. The HALE UAS
17
will remain within or above controlled airspace for all operations. Throughout the flight the
links between the UAS and the control station, and the link between the UAS pilot and ATC,
will be maintained (the aircraft is either within LOS or OTH from the control station). Since the
aircraft will always be under the command of a human pilot during normal operations, the links
must be maintained regardless of the level of autonomy of the aircraft. The security of the
control station and the command and control link will be maintained to prevent external
interference with UAS operations. The aircraft will avoid adverse weather conditions throughout
the flight. The aircraft will avoid conflicts with other air traffic through a combination of flight
planning, ATC control, and collision avoidance technology. UAS navigation during the flight
will be through a combination of onboard and off-board guidance performed from the control
station. Mission specific orbits or other deviations will be coordinated with ATC, and will either
be preprogrammed or directed from the control station. Any abnormal or “emergency”
operations will follow pre-established procedures, or will be coordinated with ATC in real-time,
to divert to an UAS capable airport or otherwise execute actions to minimize the risk to other
NAS users or people/property on the ground. Approach and landing will be to an UAS
designated airport using appropriate instrument arrival and approach/land procedures. In order
to achieve routine operations within the NAS, the recommended Access 5 Project strategy is to
attempt to incrementally gain more access to NAS with gradually less restrictions.
4.3 HALE UAS EXTERNAL INTERFACES
To completely understand how an UAS system will operate within the NAS, it is essential to
identify and understand each of the external interfaces with which the UAS system must interact.
Figure 5 depicts several of the essential external interfaces needed to operate in a safe, secure,
and efficient manner.
The specific external NAS interfaces will change depending upon where the UAS is located
within its flight profile. To better explain these external interfaces, they have been grouped
according to the part of the flight profile they are encountered. To explain this we will divide a
typical flight profile can be divided into the following phases:
1) Pre & Post-Flight Phases
2) Flight Ops Phase
A table depicting the roles and responsibilities of those involved in orchestrating a HALE UAS
flight/mission is presented in Table 3. Each of these phases and the accompanying external
interfaces are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1 External Interfaces Used During the Pre & Post-Flight Phases
Pre-flight begins with mission planning/coordination, and the filing of an IFR flight plan. This
phase ends once the aircraft has taxied to the runway and crossed the “hold-line”. The Postflight phase begins when the aircraft has safely cleared the runway at the destination airport, and
ends when the aircraft is parked in its designated area. For these phases, the local airport
management and Flight Service Station (FSS) are the two essential external interfaces:
• Airport Management - Provides aircraft siting, safety, security, environmental, and
logistics services.
• Flight Service Station - Provides weather briefings, Notice to Airman (NOTAM)
announcements, and Flight Plan filing.
18
Figure 5. HALE UAS System External Interfaces
4.3.2 External Interfaces Used During the Flight Operations Phase
The Flight Ops phase begins when the aircraft crosses the “hold-line” and accesses the runway
for take-off. Likewise, this phase ends once the aircraft has cleared the runway at the destination
airport. For this phase, the external interfaces include local ATC at the departure airport,
departure/enroute/approach control, and local ATC at the destination airport.
• Local ATC at Departure Airport – Provides Clearance (route and altitude), Ground (taxi
clearance), Tower (take-off clearance), and Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS)
information regarding local weather and runway usage.
• TRACON / ARTCC – Provides Departure Control, Enroute Control, and Approach Control.
• Local ATC at Destination Airport – Provides ATIS information regarding the local weather
and runway usage, Tower (clearance to land), and Ground (taxi clearance).
• Other Aircraft – In addition to the items listed above, the UAS must safely interface with
other manned and unmanned aircraft, both on the ground and in the air, in accordance with
FAA policies, rules, and regulations. The other aircraft operating within the NAS could be
cooperative or non-cooperative depending upon whether or not they operate using a
19
Table 3. Notional Organizational Roles and Responsibilities during a HALE UAS Mission
HALE UAS Operations
Mission Element
Preflight Planning
Ops Manager
Develop
mission/flight plan
meeting
user/customer
requirements
Ground Crew
FAA Operations
Pilot / Operator
Payload Ops
Participate in flight
plan development
Site aircraft for
preflight
Plan contingencies,
emergency
procedures, etc.
Participate in flight
plan development
Flight Services
Local ATC
Air Traffic Control
Provide weather
information for
extent of planned
flight - duration and
route
Prepare IFR flight plan
Preflight control station
Systems Preflight
Monitor systems
preflight
Perform aircraft
preflight
Tow/taxi aircraft to
runway
Taxi
Take-Off, Departure
Preflight payload
Upload flight plan into systems - on aircraft
Control Station
and in control station
File IFR flight plan
Provide weather
and NOTAM
updates
Accept flight plan
Provide taxi
guidance and
clearance
Provide launch
clearance
Pilot aircraft to runway
Launch aircraft
Startup payload
systems
Climb
Enroute, Cruise, Loiter Monitor mission
progress
(Mission Phase)
Maintain security of Pilot aircraft,
communicate with
Control Station
ATC
Provide current
runway usage
Operate payload
systems
Provide departure
directives
Provide weather
update
Provide inflight
guidance and
approvals
Provide descent
guidance and
approach clearance
Shutdown payload
systems
Descend
Arrival, Landing
Provide landing
clearance
Provide taxi
guidance and
clearance
Land aircraft
Tow/taxi aircraft
from runway
Taxi
Pilot aircraft from
runway
Close flight plan
Systems Postflight
Monitor systems
postflight
Park and secure
aircraft
Postflight Debrief
Ascertain mission
success
Particpate in
postflight, vehicle
status
Document mission
Postflight paylaod
accomplishments,
systems
discrepancies, system
anomalies, etc.
Particpate in postflight Participate in postflight
20
Close flight plan
transponder for identifying their position to other aircraft. Many systems exist today for
detecting these aircraft, thereby providing the pilot with situational awareness of all
cooperative aircraft within its immediate area. Other means such as sense and avoid
systems will be used to effectively and safely operate around non-cooperative aircraft.
4.4 EXAMPLE UAS MISSION SCENARIOS
UAS have the potential to perform a multitude of commercial, civil, and military roles. It is
often stated that UAS are ideal for those “Dull, Dirty, or Dangerous” missions because they are
not subject to the same physiological limitations commonly associated with manned aircraft. For
those potentially hazardous missions required by the DoD, DHS or science community, they
pose no risk to human life. Whenever persistence is required, they do not tire and their
performance level is consistent throughout the mission.
The following sections describe two potential mission scenarios for UAS and identify some of
their characteristics (see figure 6). For both of these scenarios, the mission altitude is above
18,000 feet and the duration of the mission, from take-off to landing, is 24-hours. Prior to
beginning the mission, an IFR flight plan would be filed and all steps required for manned flight
would be followed. This is an important concept - UAS operations within the NAS are very
similar to that of manned aircraft. The timelines for the two mission scenarios used in this
section help to exemplify and reinforce this.
Figure 6. Example HALE UAS Mission Scenarios
21
4.4.1 Loiter Mission
The Loiter (e.g., Telecommunications services) scenario depicts a mission in which an HALE
UAS would station-keep above a metropolitan area and provide telecommunication services like
a pseudo-satellite. For this type of mission, the UAS would depart from Airport A, climb to
altitude, and fly to the designated mission area, where it would loiter during its entire mission.
At the end of its mission the UAS would return to Airport A to land. The revenue portion of the
mission would be according to how much time the UAS spent over the mission area.
Since this type of mission would stay within line-of-sight distance from the control station, no
over-the-horizon communications would be necessary for command and control of the aircraft.
A single control station would be capable of operating the HALE UAS during the entire mission
scenario.
The timeline shown in figure 7 depicts events that would occur during this proposed mission
scenario.
Figure 7. Loiter Mission Timeline
4.4.2 Point-to Point Mission
The Point-to-Point (e.g., cross country transport) scenario depicts a mission where large UAS are
used to transport cargo from one side of the country to the other. In this scenario the UAS would
depart from Airport A, climb to altitude, and traverse the country enroute to Airport B, where it’s
cargo would be unloaded. The revenue portion of the mission would be the entire flight,
between takeoff and landing.
Since this type of mission would exceed the line-of-sight distance from the control station some
means of over-the-horizon communications would need to be used for command and control of
the aircraft. Although a single control station is capable of commanding and controlling the
UAS during the entire mission scenario, it could also be feasible to handover control of the
aircraft to another control station, possibly located at the destination airport.
The timeline shown in figure 8 depicts some of the events that would occur during this proposed
mission scenario.
22
Figure 8. Point-to-Point Mission Timeline
Variants of this mission profile might include the relocated of a HALE UAS from one airport to
another, or a long range mission requiring a long dwell/loiter mid-mission and return to an
airport other than that which it departed from.
4.5
HALE UAS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE NAS
To operate within the NAS, HALE UAS operations will involve: 1) Mission Planning, 2) Airport
Operations, 3) Departure and Arrival Operations, 4) Enroute / Cruise Operations, and 5)
Contingency Operations. Each of these will be further described within this section.
4.5.1 Mission Planning Operations
The objective of mission planning is to develop a mission/flight plan that meets the user
requirements, and at the same time minimize the impact on the ATC system and other airspace
users. Mission planning helps to ensure the HALE UAS mission objectives can be accomplished
safely and successfully within the regulatory and air traffic setting.
Operational capabilities will vary between types of HALE UAS. Therefore, a variety of issues
must be considered during mission planning: airport operations, climb-out, mission profile,
descent/arrival, and avoidance of special use airspace during times when the airspace is active.
4.5.2 Airport Operations
Analysis of airport operations and the surrounding environment is important for HALE UAS
departure and arrival. The analysis will include identification of the airport’s normal busy air
traffic periods, traffic patterns for manned aircraft, noise sensitive areas, optimum location for
the control station, sites for visual observers, and potential flight termination areas. HALE UAS
operators will coordinate with airport management and other organizations, as required for
security, safety, environmental, frequency coordination (FCC, AFTRCC, NTIA) and logistics.
UAS pilots will follow standard operating procedures to the maximum extent possible or obtain
waivers for any exceptions.
HALE UAS operators will use common ATC frequencies to the maximum extent possible
including ATIS, ground control and clearance delivery.
When HALE UAS are unable to taxi to/from the active runway and have to be towed, procedures
and schedules will need to be publicized to the other airport users.
23
4.5.3 Departure & Arrival Operations
HALE UAS operators will follow existing IFR departure, arrival and approach procedures to the
maximum extent possible. HALE UAS operations will utilize departure control and radar
approach control facilities/services. If HALE UAS are unable to navigate along the IFR
departure and arrival routes designed for manned aircraft, specific routes may need to be
developed in concert with the appropriate ATC facility and the appropriate FAA Flight
Procedures Office. In some situations, the time of takeoff and arrival may be restricted to
specific times when manned aircraft operations are minimal.
4.5.4 En-Route/Cruise Operations
The greatest factor involved in accomplishing the mission objective is the ability to operate along
the mission route and/or within the mission area. Due to the nature of the mission, it may be
critical that the mission portion of the flight is given priority for remaining on the profile, unless
the safety of another aircraft precludes this. In any event, safety considerations will always take
precedent over the mission objectives.
UAS operators will maintain contact with the air route traffic control centers (ARTCC) using
common VHF/UHF communications frequencies or a direct telephone/land line (not a preferred
method, emergency use only) to the center controller. The enroute portion of flight will use
existing route structure to the maximum extent possible. If deviations are required, they will be
coordinated with ATC.
4.5.5 Contingency Operations
The fact that a pilot is not onboard the HALE UAS to make decisions when in-flight anomalies
or emergencies arise (e.g., control surface inoperable, engine-out) mandates that detailed
planning be accomplished to ensure that safety is maintained. Provisions for the aircraft to
automatically maintain adequate levels of safety must be maintained should the ability of the
pilot to control the HALE UAS be interrupted (e.g., loss of C2 link). Depending upon the
situation and requirements the UAS will use predetermined means to aborting the flight.
4.6 OVERALL NAS INTEGRATION
HALE UAS will be designed, equipped and operated so that they are compliant with today’s
NAS, as well as the future NAS as described within the FAA’s NAS development documents
(see Section 1.2). HALE UAS operations will benefit from these proposed NAS enhancements
but will not depend on them. Definitions and regulations may need to be modified to allow for
HALE UAS operations, but these changes will only be implemented when the FAA has assured
such changes will not impact the safety, security, or efficiency of the NAS.
HALE UAS will operate in the same airspace simultaneously with manned aircraft, with limited
requirements for special considerations. Although special departure and arrival procedures may
be required, UAS pilots will be able to maneuver these aircraft along defined and predictable
flight paths and at assigned altitudes. UAS pilots will comply with all flight rules applicable to
the class of airspace that the UAS operates within. As such, HALE UAS flight operations will
be performed safely in all categories of airspace by complying with the following criteria:
1. Ensure that positive flight control will be available throughout the planned route when
planning the flight operation.
24
2. Conduct all normal and abnormal operations in accordance with the guidelines contained in
a flight manual created by the HALE UAS developer.
3. Provide flight-planning information (comparable to that used for piloted aircraft) to the NAS
information system for traffic conflict prediction and metering/scheduling purposes. This
information should include flight plan modifications (contingencies) to be implemented in
case of an emergency.
4. Ensure that one or more of the accepted methods used to sense and avoid other aircraft is
employed at all times to achieve the target level of safety.
5. Satisfy the required levels of CNS/ATM/pilot performance to meet existing separation
criteria.
25
This page intentionally left blank.
26
5.
IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 POLICIES / RULES / REGULATIONS
NASA, DoD, other federal agencies and UAS manufacturers will need to work closely with the
appropriate FAA organizations to develop the necessary policies, rules, and regulations
supporting UAS operations within the NAS. These UAS-specific policies/rules/regulations will
help define and shape the operational concepts for civil, commercial, and government UAS
operating in the NAS.
5.2 ENABLING CAPABILITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Reliable operating equipment is essential to achieving safe flight for both manned and unmanned
aircraft. The basic operating equipment requirements applied to manned aircraft (position and
strobe lights, ATC radar transponder, altimeter, and navigation equipment) are applicable to
HALE UAS. In addition, HALE UAS flight operations may require additional enabling
capabilities and technologies in order to operate in a safe, and efficient manner. These enabling
capabilities and technologies may include:
•
Collision Avoidance – Collision avoidance systems enable HALE UAS to sense and avoid
other air traffic in their proximate airspace. Regardless of the technologies (visual, radar,
cooperative transponder, or other advanced technology) used to sense traffic or the level of
autonomy used to avoid a collision, UAS must be able to perform seven basic functions.
These functions are: 1) detect all cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft within the
necessary surveillance volume, 2) track the aircraft that have been detected, 3) evaluate
collision potential, 4) prioritize collision threats, 5) determine an appropriate avoidance
maneuver, 6) command the maneuver, and 7) execute the maneuver.
• Command & Control (C2) Link – C2 equipment must provide reliable transfer of command
and control information between the control station and the UAS whether in LOS or OTH
mode. The OTH link could be through a satellite, airborne relay, or a series of groundbased relay towers. Regardless of the type of link, the security of the control station and the
C2 link must always be maintained to prevent external interference with UAS control.
Unless collision avoidance equipment automatically maneuvers the UAS to avoid another
aircraft when a conflict is detected, a single channel C2 link capability may not provide the
level of safety required.
• ATC Communications – ATC Communication equipment need to provide direct two-way
communications between the UAS pilot/operator and the appropriate ATC facility
regardless of the location of the control station or the UAS. As the ATC communication
architecture, technology, and operational requirements change in the future, UAS to ATC
communication capabilities will need to keep pace.
• Auto-Land – Auto-land systems may be required to enabling the UAS to automatically land
at UAS designated airports in the event of a loss-link contingency.
• Navigation – Supplemental onboard navigation equipment that allow the precise navigation
of the UAS regardless of the status of the global positioning satellite (GPS) system may be
needed.
27
Other topics that will likely need to be researched in order to achieve unrestricted HALE UAS
access to the NAS include:
• Reliability – Reliability purview covers the aircraft and associated on-board systems
(mechanical and digital) as well as the control station systems required to support and
operate the UAS. System reliability requirements and proposed certification processes for
establishing safe and secure HALE UAS operations in the NAS are needed.
• Human/System Interface (HSI) – Human System Interface (HSI) guidelines and
requirements for procedures and interfaces between the UAS, control station and ATC.
Specific topics include: Control Station, UAS Pilot Knowledge, Skill, Abilities (KSA); and
UAS system certification.
• Weather Detection & Avoidance – Weather detection and avoidance equipment that
provides a way to detect weather and ensure that the UAS maintains proper separation.
• Contingency Management – Equipment and procedures providing the necessary reliability
for safely operating within the NAS during anomalous conditions. This includes mission
planning and system contingency requirements (e.g., flight recovery system) and procedures
that reduce the likelihood of a loss-of-life or damage to property when a landing cannot be
performed at an UAS designated airfield.
Mission management and aircraft flight control system functionality (i.e., level of
sophistication, autonomy) will be aircraft dependent. All UAS systems will need to be able
to demonstrate that it can maintain an equivalent level of safety as a manned systems at all
times, regardless of the anomaly.
5.3 UAS CAPABLE AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
This CONOPS envisions that HALE UAS will operate out of UAS capable airports with the
necessary infrastructure, equipment, runway, and trained personnel to accommodate the take-off
and landing of unmanned aircraft.
5.4 OPERATIONS WITHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE
ICAO requirements should also be considered and complied with to the maximum practicable
extent. It is recognize that proposed flight operations over the high seas and within the sovereign
airspace of other nations must be coordinated with the appropriate aviation authorities and
approval must be obtained prior to any HALE UAS flight operation in such airspace.
28
6.
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reference material cited during creation of this Access 5 Concept of Operations document are
listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Concept of Operations References
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Title
ATS Concept of Operations for the
National Airspace System in 2005
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
Operating Procedures
C4ISR Architecture Framework
Certification of Light Sport Aircraft
Through the Use of Consensus Standards
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft;
Proposed Rule
Charting the Course for Tomorrow’s ATC
System
Circular A119: Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary
Committee F37 on Light Sport Aircraft
Concept of Operations and Vision for the
Future of Aviation
Consensus Standards: Why? What?
How?
Source
Attribution
Date
Type
FAA
M.R. Belger
9/30/97
Paper
FAA
unknown
12/16/02
Paper
unknown
Architecture
Working
Group
12/18/99
Paper
ASTM
S. Sedgwick
2002
Web Page
FAA
unknown
2002
Web Page
Federal
Register
unknown
2/5/02
Paper
FAA
M. Harrison
2001
Briefing
OMB
unknown
2/10/98
Paper
ASTM
Daniel Schultz
unknown
Web Page
RTCA
unknown
unknown
Paper
ASTM
M. Jones
unknown
Paper
12
Definition of NAS Compatible Hale UAV
Northrop
Grumman
J. Stout
2/20/03
Briefing
13
Global Hawk/High-Altitude LongEndurance UAV (HALE) See-and-Avoid
Technology Overview
Northrop
Grumman
unknown
1/23/03
Briefing
14
High Altitude Long-Endurance Unmanned
Vehicles, Certification & Regulatory
Roadmap
TAAC / MTSI
1/5/01
Paper
15
High Altitude Long-Endurance Unmanned
Vehicles, Concept of Operations in the
National Airspace System, Version 1.2
TAAC / MTSI
Jul, 2001
Paper
unknown
unknown
Paper
Russell Wolfe
3/26/02
Paper
unknown
Paper
Jan, 1999
Paper
16
17
Index to RTCA Documents
Key Technology Initiatives Related to the
"See and Avoid" Capability for Remotely
Operated Aircraft (ROA)
NASA
ERAST
Alliance
Certification
Project
NASA
ERAST
Alliance
Certification
Project
RTCA
MTSI
18
Light Sport Aircraft
ASTM
19
NAS Operations
FAA
29
Committee
F37
unknown
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Title
NAS Operations Evolution Plan, Version
5.0
National HALE UAV Program, Joint
UNITE/NASA, Initial Plan, Version 3
National High Altitude Airspace Redesign
Decision Tree
Notional Plan for Integration of HALE
UAVs into National Airspace
Operational Concept Document (ATMP/1WP/30).
Review of RTCA National Airspace
System Concept of Operations and Vision
for the Future of Aviation
Technical Qualifications & Remotely
Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Satellite Systems
Communication (SCS) Approach
Terms & Definitions Applicable to
UAVs/ROA
Source
Attribution
Date
Type
FAA
M.C. Blakey
Dec, 2002
Paper
DFRC
Multiple
11/1/02
Briefing
unknown
unknown
unknown
Briefing
General
Atomics
S. Dann
2/12/03
Briefing
ICAO
NASA Ames
Research
Center
NuCom Data
Systems
Corporation
EURO UVS
28
Unrestricted UAV Flight in the ATM
System: UAV and ATM Requirements
Boeing
Company
29
White Paper Addressing the Challenges
Facing ROA Operation in the NAS
NASA
ERAST
30
Mar, 2002
Matt Jardin
2/21/03
Paper
unknown
1997
Paper
2/6/02
Paper
1/1/03
Briefing
7/5/02
Paper
Blyenburgh &
Co,
C. Monson,
G. Gershzohn,
J. Dwyer,
M. Mullens
MTSI
APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS
ACO
AFTRCC
AFSS
AIAA
ARTCC
ATC
ATCAA
ATD
ATIS
ATM
CFR
C2
C3
CNS
COA
CONOPS
CS
DoD
DoE
ELOS
EO
FAA
FAR
FCC
FMCS
FRS
FS
FTS
GFY
HALE
ICAO
IFR
IR
LOA
LOS
MoA
MOA
MSL
NAS
NOAA
NOTAM
Aircraft Certification Office
Aerospace & Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council
Automated Flight Service Station
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Air Route Traffic Control Center
Air Traffic Control
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
Air Traffic Division
Automatic Terminal Information Service
Air Traffic Management
Code of Federal Regulations
Command and Control
Command, Control and Communications
Communications, Navigation, Surveillance
Certificate of Authorization
Concept of Operations
Control Station
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Equivalent Level of Safety
Electro-Optic
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation Regulation
Federal Communications Commission
Flight Management Control System
Flight Recovery System
Flight Standards
Flight Termination System
Government Fiscal Year
High Altitude Long Endurance
International Civil Aviation Organization
Instrument Flight Rules
Infrared
Level of Autonomy
Line-of-Sight
Memorandum of Agreement
Military Operating Airspace
Mean Sea Level
National Airspace System
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Notice to Airmen
31
NTIA
OPSCON
OSD
OTH
PFC
PIC
RAPCON
ROA
RPV
RVSM
SA
SAR
SARPs
STC
SUA
SWIM
TRACON
UA
UAS
UAV
UHF
VFR
VHF
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION
Operational Concept
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Over-the-Horizon
Positive Flight Control
PILOT IN COMMAND
Radar Approach Control
Remotely Operated Aircraft
Remotely Piloted Vehicle
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
Sense & Avoid
Synthetic Aperture Radar
Standards and Recommended Practices
Space Transition Corridor
Special Use Airspace
System Wide Information Management
Terminal Radar Approach Control
Unmanned Aircraft
Unmanned Aircraft System
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Ultra-High Frequency
Visual Flight Rules
Very High Frequency
32
APPENDIX B – DEFINITIONS
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) – Airspace of defined vertical/lateral limits,
assigned by ATC, for the purpose of providing air traffic segregation for IFR traffic within the
assigned airspace.
ATC Communication Link – Two-way data and/or voice link between the UAS and Air Traffic
Control and/or other aircraft.
Autonomous / Automatic Operations – Operations that do not require direct pilot control. See
levels of autonomy.
Certificate of Authorization (COA) – An FAA grant of approval for a specific operation(s).
Civil Aircraft – Aircraft other than public aircraft.
Command and Control (C2) Link – The two-way data link between the UAS pilot and the UAS
that is used to control the UAS and monitor the health and status of onboard systems.
Concept of Operation (CONOPS) – A detailed description of the means for implementing an
operational concept that is necessary to integrate UAS into the NAS in order to accommodate a
“file and fly” capability.
Control Station (CS) – A site configured to allow the pilot in command of an UAS to operate
and monitor all UAS operations conducted under his/her authority. Includes the equipment from
which the UAS pilot/operator remotely controls and monitors the flight and mission activity of
the UAS. The launch/recovery, maintenance, training and logistics elements may or may-not be
co-located with the control station.
Cooperative Traffic – Traffic that broadcasts position or other information, which assists in
detecting and assessing conflict potential.
Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) – An evaluation, often subjective, of a system and/or
operation to determine the risk to other users of the NAS and people/property on the ground.
File and Fly – The ability of UAS operator to file an IFR flight plan and operate in all classes of
airspace, consistent with the regulatory criteria and operational requirements for manned aircraft.
The flights require no pre-coordination with ATC. As with manned aircraft, UAS flights
requiring special ATC handling in order to achieve mission objectives are not 'file and fly' and
would be pre-coordinated with ATC.
Flight Management Control System (FMCS) – An operable system onboard a UAS that
performs the flight control actions from input received from the pilot via the C2 link or that
automatically operates the HALE UAS from data previously installed.
Flight Team Member – Any individual whose duties could affect the safe outcome of the flight.
Flight Termination System (FTS) – A device or pre-planned course of action that is used to
terminate flight operations when continued safe flight is not possible.
High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Aircraft – An aircraft capable of performing mission
objectives at an altitude above 40,000-foot mean sea level (MSL) for durations of more than 24
hours.
33
Letter of Agreement (LOA) – A document that is negotiated by ATC facilities and other
persons/facilities/organizations for a variety of purposes. For UAS operations, the letter of
agreement would normally be established to define airspace areas and associated operating
procedures.
Levels of Autonomy (LOA) – Autonomy is about minimizing human involvement in the
operation of the aircraft (e.g., workload) while providing enhanced mission flexibility and
vehicle robustness. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) defines
autonomy as “A systems own ability of sensing, perceiving, analyzing, communicating,
planning, decision-making, and acting, to achieve its goal as assigned by human operators”.
UAS will be operated for durations exceeding the physical capabilities of a human operator and
the cost of operating the aircraft can be minimized by reducing the work load required to a level
sufficient that numerous aircraft may be operated by a single operator. The following Levels of
Autonomy are used by the NASA Vehicle Systems Program UAV Sector to articulate its
autonomy goals and objectives.
Level 1. Simple Automation; – Remotely piloted with some automation techniques to reduce
pilot workload. Human monitoring to start/stop tasks. (80% hands-on-time.)
Level 2. Remotely Operated – Human operator allows UAS on-board systems to do the
piloting. As part of the outer control loop, the human makes decisions as to where to go, when,
what to do once there). Remotely supervised, with health monitoring and limited diagnostics.
Operator allows UAS to execute preprogrammed tasks, only taking over if the UAS is unable
or fails to properly execute them. (50% hands-on-time.)
Level 3. Highly-Automated (or Semi-Autonomous – UAS performs complex tasks. System
understands its environment (situational awareness) and makes routine decisions and mission
refinements to dynamically adjust to flight and mission variables. Limited human supervision,
managed by exception. Adaptive to failures and evolving flight conditions. (20% hands-ontime.)
Level 4. Fully Autonomous – UAS receives high level objective (location, time) from
operator, translates them into tasks that are executed without further human intervention. UAS
has the ability and authority to make all decisions. Extensive situational awareness (internal
and external), prognostics, and on-board flight replanning capability. Single aircraft
operations. (Less than 5% hands-on-time.)
An important concept in above LOA is that of “hands-on-time”. Hands-on-time is defined as the
percentage of a pilot’s time (direct attention paid to the UAS) that would be required to safely
operate the UAS during a given mission. Hands-on-time is limited to the pilot/operator and
does not include other mission personnel (e.g., sensor/payload operator). Nominal values are
presented in the table, actual hands-on-time will vary with the mission.
Line-of-Sight (LOS) – The condition where the control station and the UAS are within electronic
point-to-point link.
Manned Aircraft – Aircraft that are piloted by a human onboard.
Mission Area – Airspace of defined horizontal and vertical dimensions and a defined duration
within which the UAS will operate during a specified mission. The mission area is not
associated with the flight route from/to the departure/arrival airports (see Route).
34
Mission Route – The flight path to be taken within the Mission Area where sensors or other
applications will be exercised. Changes to the Mission Route during the mission could adversely
affect the mission objectives.
Non-Cooperative Traffic – Traffic that does not broadcast position or other information.
Operational Concept – A high level description of ATM services necessary to integrate UAS
into the NAS by a given time horizon.
Operator – The individual that monitors and controls an UAS through near-real-time issuance of
command and control input to the aircraft. An operator posses the applicable aeronautical
knowledge but is not necessarily an FAA rated pilot.
Over-the-Horizon (OTH) – The condition where the control station and the UAS are beyond
line-of-sight of each other. Also referred to as Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS).
Pilot – The individual that monitors and controls the UAS through issuance of command and
control input to the aircraft and possesses the appropriate FAA pilot certifications and ratings.
Pilot in Command (PIC) – The person responsible for the safe flight operation of a HALE UAS
during all aspects of its operation, including the time that the UAS is under the direct command
of a subordinate UAS pilot. The PIC may be responsible for multiple UASs at a given time.
Positive Flight Control (PFC) – A situation where the pilot/operator is assured of having lineof-sight or over-the-horizon command and control communication capability.
Public Aircraft – An aircraft used only for United States Government purposes, or is owned and
operated, or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days, by a governmental entity such as
a State, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or political
subdivisions of such entities. DoD aircraft are public aircraft.
Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA) – See “Unmanned Aircraft System.”
Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) – An aircraft that is operated from a remote location by a pilot
that issues command and control instructions to the aircraft, which are executed in real-time by
an onboard flight management control system.
UAS Capable Airport – An airport that is capable of handling UAS operations.
UAS Mission – Those flight operations that have been approved by the appropriate FAA Air
Traffic Division in the Certificate of Authorization or defined in the flight plan filed for “File and
Fly” (see) operations.
Route – The flight path of UAS from the departure airport to the arrival airport, excluding any
mission route (see) and mission area (see). Course changes to the route have no impact on the
mission objectives.
Routine Operations – See "File and Fly".
Sense and Avoid – The ability to sense traffic which may be a conflict, evaluate flight paths,
determine traffic right-of-way, and maneuver to avoid other traffic.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) – See “Unmanned Aircraft System.”
Unmanned Aircraft (UA) – An airborne element of an unmanned aircraft system that is capable
of flying without a pilot onboard.
35
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) – A distributed system comprised of an unmanned aircraft,
control station and data/communication links, needed to safely operate an unmanned aircraft
from a remote location by a pilot/operator. The pilot/operator communicates with ATC and
issues command and control instructions to the aircraft that are then executed by onboard flight
management and control systems. See Unmanned Aircraft (UA), Control Station (CS),
Command and Control (C2) Link, and ATC Communication Link.
36
APPENDIX C – ACCESS 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Access 5 Project is a government and industry partnership intended to lead the way in
promoting the use of safe and reliable unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for civil and
commercial applications. All partners are committed to leveraging resources and expertise to
achieve the mutually goal of achieving routine operations within the National Airspace System
(NAS) for high altitude, long endurance (HALE) UAS as soon as practical.
In 2002, the major U.S. HALE UAS manufacturers/operators formed the UAV National Industry
Team (UNITE) to pursue a strategic partnership with each other and key government agencies to
open the NAS to routine HALE UAS flight. The UNITE approached the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) with the partnership proposition because of the Agency's
prior investment in HALE UAS platform maturation, its role in planning for the evolution of the
NAS, its aircraft technology expertise, and its experience in sponsoring effective governmentindustry alliances.
NASA as the lead agency orchestrates the participation of other federal agencies and industry
partners. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
are essential participants as they operate most of the unmanned aircraft in use today, and sponsor
several programs and government labs developing unmanned aircraft and supporting subsystem
technologies. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considered to be the most vital
stakeholder involved in this effort since they are responsible for the overall safety, security, and
efficiency of the NAS. The FAA plays a key advisory role in the development of the necessary
rules, regulations and policies established for UAS.
C.1
ACCESS 5 VISION AND MISSION
The Access 5 Project seeks to improve the HALE UAS access to the NAS while maintaining its
safety, security, and efficiency. The ultimate goal of the Access 5 Project is to create the
environment to allow HALE UAS to operate in all categories of airspace with the same freedom
as manned aircraft. The Access 5 Project vision and mission are:
Access 5 Vision
To operate High Altitude, Long Endurance
Remotely Operated Aircraft routinely, safely, and reliably
in the National Airspace System
Access 5 Mission
Through a Strategic Government/Industry Alliance, accomplish the Access 5 vision
by developing standards, regulations, and procedures
demonstrating the technologies, and implementing infrastructure
necessary to meet national priorities.
C.2 ACCESS 5 PROJECT SCOPE
The Access 5 Project will generate recommendations to the FAA for certification and rule
changes. It is also expected that new technologies will be developed and demonstrated to ensure
the safety and reliability of UAS and to adapt the air traffic management system and airport
infrastructure to routine UAS presence.
37
The top-level objectives for the project are:
1) Develop technologies necessary to achieve routine HALE UAS operations in the national
airspace,
2) Develop standard operational procedures for HALE UAS in the national airspace,
3) Develop the ability to safely handle in-flight emergencies,
4) Provide information necessary to the development of policies and regulations required to
permit HALE UAS to “file and fly” with the same ease of access as a manned aircraft,
5) Establish seamless interfaces with the national airspace system and air traffic management
infrastructure,
6) Transition developed technology to application.
C.3
ACCESS 5 PROJECT STRUCTURE
The Access 5 Project is organized within the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
(ARMD) according to the structure presented in figure C1. Roles and responsibilities of each
organizational element are defined below.
Government Lead Oversees the day-to-day management of the project and alliance activities.
The project status is regularly reported to the Directors of the Vehicle Systems and Airspace
Systems Programs at NASA Headquarters. NASA appoints the Access 5 Project Manager.
Industry Director Assists the Access 5 Project Manager in the day-to-day management of the
project and alliance activities. The UNITE Industry Organization appoints the Industry Director.
Steering Committee Comprised of members from NASA, the FAA, DoD, DHS and Industry,
the Steering Committee will establish the course for the Alliance; synchronize commitments by
government and industry as well as the stakeholder objectives; and coordinate all external
communications and advocacy.
Project Control, Facilitation, & Collaboration Responsible for tracking the overall project
schedule and costs (invoices & billing); addresses all legal matters; provides meeting and
conference support; and assists in project communications.
System Engineering and Integration Team (SEIT) Comprised of subject matter experts from
government and industry, the SEIT provides the Access 5 Project with technical advice and
oversight. The SEIT is responsible for overall program documentation, including the Integrated
Master Schedule, Project Plan, Concept of Operations, and the Functional Requirements
Document. The SEIT is responsible for coordinating the activities of the four integrated product
teams and resolves any cross-task issues.
Integrated Product Teams (IPT)
The Policy IPT is responsible for drafting the proposed rules, regulations, and policies needed to
routinely operate HALE UAS within the NAS. Several FAA organizations act as advisors to the
Policy IPT through this activity.
38
Figure C1. Access 5 Project Organization Structure
The Technology IPT is responsible for identifying the enabling technologies necessary to
provide HALE UAS with an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) to that of a manned aircraft. In
addition, the minimum operational, functional, and performance requirements associated with
these technologies must also be developed by the Technology IPT. These requirements, along
with their supporting rationale and data, are intended to support the development of policies and
standards associated with these technologies. The three Technology IPT work packages are:
WP02: Collision Avoidance, WP06: Command, Control, Communications, and WP09: Weather
Awareness.
The Specialty Engineering IPT is responsible for providing matrix engineering support across
Access 5. Like the Technology IPT, the overall objective is to identify minimum operational,
functional and performance requirements necessary to define and support the appropriate level of
safety for HALE UAS operations, equivalent to that of manned aircraft. The three Specialty
Engineering IPT work packages are: WP05: Contingency Management and Mission Planning,
WP07: Human System Interface, and WP08: Reliability.
The Simulation IPT is responsible for developing the necessary NAS simulations and UAS
models that will be used to validate Access 5 proposed operational concepts.
The Flight IPT is responsible for performing flight tests demonstrating the enabling technologies,
and applicable rules regulations, and policies.
39
The Implementation IPT is responsible for establishing the required infrastructure and necessary
training in order to operationalize routine UAS access to the NAS.
Work Packages Specific research activities are accomplished through annually defined and
competed work packages. Work package leads are responsible for managing the research
content, cost, schedule, and resources associated with each work package. Each work package
lead reports through the IPT lead responsible for the work package.
C.4
ACCESS 5 PROJECT PLAN and Phases
Between March and July of 2003 the Access 5 partners engaged in a highly integrated effort to
develop a shared concept for how HALE UAS will operate in the national airspace, and what
issues must be addressed to achieve the goal. The purpose of this detailed planning process was
threefold. First and foremost, it focused upon arriving at a common vision of the solution and a
satisfactory framework for attacking the distinct problems that must be solved. Second, it
substantiated the costs for discrete activities and for the Project as a whole. And third, it defined
the tasks and identified the companies/government organizations that could perform the work
commencing in Government Fiscal Year 2004.
To orchestrate the planning process the Access 5 Project stood-up a Systems Engineering and
Integration Team (SEIT), composed of highly qualified individuals from the participating
organizations. The SEIT was charged with formulating the concept of operations and the
operational concepts for HALE UAS in the national airspace. Four subject matter teams Technology, Policies & Procedures, Implementation, and Simulation & Flight Test - were
established. The four teams were populated with experts from the participating organizations.
These “integrated planning teams” defined the challenges in their area, identified the possible
solution sets, formulated project statements, and recommend the best approach. At the
conclusion of the detailed planning process the five teams merged their findings into a single
project plan that provided the directional and cost roadmaps for the overall Access 5 Project.
In order to achieve routine operations within the NAS, the strategy of Access 5 Project was to
work with the FAA and industry to incrementally gain more access to NAS with gradually less
restrictions. The Access 5 Project would approach the challenge of integrating HALE UAS into
the national airspace using a four (4) phase or “Step” process:
Step 1: Routine Operations above FL430 through Pre-coordinated Airspace
Step 2: Routine Operations above FL180 through Pre-coordinated Airspace with Emergency
Landings at Pre-coordinated Airports
Step 3: Routine Operations above FL180 through C, D, E Airspace with Emergency
Landings at Pre-coordinated Airports
Step 4: Routine Operations above FL180 through C, D, E Airspace with Emergency
Landings at any UAS Designated Airport
A brief synopsis of each of these four steps is provided below.
40
C.4.1 Step 1: Routine Operations above FL430 through Pre-coordinated Airspace
Step 1 will focus on achieving safe, reliable, and routine operational access for UAS at or above
FL4304 with ascent / descent limited to restricted or pre-coordinated airspace. For contingencies
preventing the UAS from completing its mission, the UAS will be pre-programmed to fly to a
pre-designated or restricted area for recovery.
Step 1 objectives are: 1) Establish agreed-to requirements for flight operations above FL430 in
the NAS; 2) Establish agreed-to policies, regulations, and procedures that achieve an initial level
of certitude (i.e., registration and an experimental certificate); and 3) Demonstrate the
capabilities necessary to achieve the requirements established in objective 1 above, for an
experimental certificate. Figure C2 depicts the Step 1 capabilities.
At a minimum, the technologies planned for demonstration during this step will include:
• Compatible air traffic control operations and voice communications
• Pilot-in-the-loop collision avoidance with cooperative aircraft
• Reliable LOS and OTH command, control, and communications
Figure C2. Step 1 Capabilities
Step 1 nominal altitude increased from FL400 to FL430 to conform with domestic RVSM
instituted in January 2005.
4
41
C.4.2 Step 2: Routine Operations above FL180 through Pre-coordinated Airspace with
Emergency Landings at Pre-coordinated Airports
Step 2 will focus on achieving safe, reliable, and routine operational access for UAS at or above
FL180 with ascent/descent limited to restricted or pre-coordinated airspace. For contingencies
preventing the UAS from completing its mission, the UAS will be pre-programmed to fly to a
pre-designated or restricted area for recovery.
Objectives of Step 2 are: 1) Establish agreed-to requirements for flight operations above FL180
in the NAS; 2) Establish agreed-to policies, regulations, and procedures that achieve a Type
Certification basis; and 3) Demonstrate the capabilities necessary to conduct experimental flight
operations above FL180. Figure C3 depicts the Step 2 capabilities.
The technologies planned for demonstration during this step will include the Step 1
accomplishments plus:
• Enhanced LOS and OTH command, control, and communications
• Enhanced system security (e.g., identification, authentication, confidentiality, availability,
integrity, non-repudiation)
• Collision avoidance with non-cooperative aircraft (Sense & Avoid)
• Near real-time weather information (e.g., thunderstorms) available at the control station
provided by a weather service
Figure C3. Step 2 Capabilities
42
C.4.3 Step 3: Routine Operations above FL180 through C, D, E Airspace with Emergency
Landings at Pre-coordinated Airports
Step 3 will focus on achieving safe, reliable, and routine operational access for UAS at or above
FL180 with ascent/descent in Class C, D, or E airspace. For contingencies preventing the UAS
from completing its mission, the UAS will be pre-programmed to fly to a pre-coordinated UAS
designated airport.
Step 3 objectives are: 1) Establish agreed-to requirements for flight operations above FL180 in
the NAS with ascent and descent through controlled airspace; 2) Establish agreed-to policies,
regulations, and procedures that would achieve a Special Certificate of Airworthiness; and 3)
Demonstrate the capabilities necessary to conduct experimental flight operations above FL180
with ascent and descent through controlled airspace. Figure C4 depicts the Step 3 capabilities.
The technologies planned for demonstration during this step will include accomplishments from
Step 2 plus:
• Surface operations (e.g., prevent runway accidents/incursions)
• Autonomous collision avoidance with cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft
• Air-vehicle based Auto-land (including back-up navigation)
• On-board Weather sensing (i.e., wind shear, turbulence, icing)
Figure C4. Step 3 Capabilities
43
C.4.4
Step 4: Routine Operations above FL180 through C, D, E Airspace with
Emergency Landings at any UAS Designated Airport
Step 4 will focus on achieving safe, reliable, and routine operational access for UAS at or above
FL180 with ascent/descent in Class C, D, or E airspace. For contingencies preventing the UAS
from completing its mission, the UAS will be pre-programmed to fly to the closest UAS
designated airport with FAA coordination.
Step 4 objectives are: 1) Establish agreed-to requirements for flight operations above FL180 in
the NAS with ascent and descent through controlled airspace, including emergency operations;
2) Establish agreed-to policies, regulations, and procedures that would achieve a Standard
Certificate of Airworthiness and an Air Operating Certificate; and 3) Demonstrate the
capabilities necessary to conduct routine operations within the NAS. Figure C5 depicts the Step
4 capabilities.
The technologies planned for demonstration during this step will include the Step 3
accomplishments plus:
• Auto Voice (i.e. the ability to communicate with ATC during lost-link conditions
• Contingency Management technologies ensuring safe operations and landings during
anomalous/emergency conditions
Figure C5. Step 4 Capabilities
44
This page intentionally left blank.
45